League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
	Los Angeles County, CA November 6, 2012 Election
	Measure O Change of Municipal Election Dates City of Long Beach Charter Amendment - Majority Approval Required Fail: 59,148 / 45.69% Yes votes ...... 70,295 / 54.31% No votes See Also: Index of all Measures

Arguments For Measure O

Arguments Against Measure O

Long Beach has saved millions by consolidating city departments and government functions. So far, we have consolidated emergency dispatch functions, planning department functions, and parking functions. Each of these consolidations saves a little money. Together, they add up to BIG SAVINGS. In 1981, the Legislature gave cities in California the right to consolidate their local elections with state elections. IT SAVES MONEY. Today, 347 California cities hold their elections on the same days as the state. Of course, there are still some cities and politicians that prefer the old way. It's more expensive and fewer people vote. Our election system in Long Beach is broken. In some elections, Councilmembers can be elected with only 1,000 votes. This year, over 30,000 Long Beach voters petitioned the City Council to put Measure 0 on the ballot. Under the current system in Long Beach, we vote three times in each election year - the city elections are in April and June ... and then we vote again in November. With Measure 0, our city elections will be held in June and November, just like the state. So instead of spending money to vote in three elections, we can get it done in two. Some may attempt to confuse you, but the Long Beach Press Telegram cut through all the rhetoric and summed up Measure 0 simply - "The initiative would help align local and state ballots." Because it's a City Charter change, Measure 0 can't apply to our local school or community college districts. So we won't save as much money at first. But we will if they follow our lead. Every change starts with a small step. Measure 0 is a step in the right direction. Long Beach's consolidation efforts should continue to grow and save money. Vote Yes on Measure O. KATHAY FENG Executive Director, California Common Cause ROBERT GARCIA Long Beach Vice Mayor AL AUSTIN Long Beach City Councilmember STEVEN NEAL Long Beach City Councilmember Rebuttal to Arguments For DON'T BE FOOLED! Outside special interests from Sacramento and Los Angeles are pushing Measure O because they want to take control of our school district by lowering voter turnout and making our City elections more expensive so that local community candidates can't compete with the candidates they bankroll. Measure O would: INCREASE COSTS by $1,200,000, not save money INCREASE THE NUMBER OF ELECTIONS, not reduce them as they claim LOWER TURNOUT for school district elections Why would anybody favor a change that would increase costs, increase the number of elections, and lower turnout for local School Board elections? Because outside special interests don't care about our local community--only about their own agenda. School and City elections were consolidated in 1986 to save money and increase turnout. Under the previous system of separate elections, voter turnout was low for School Board elections (for example, 9.5% for the 1983 election), while election costs were high. Measure O would undo that reform, driving down turnout while increasing costs, especially for our cash-strapped schools. Measure O proponents are trying to deceive you about their plan to take over the School Board by saying the City Charter requires those elections in April--don't be fooled. They simply chose to move City elections while keeping the School Board in April, GUARANTEEING HIGHER COSTS from multiple ballots and LOWERED TURNOUT for School Board. Vote based on facts, not fiction--VOTE NO ON MEASURE O BOB FOSTER, Mayor City of Long Beach LAURA L. DOUD, City Auditor City of Long Beach FELTON WILLIAMS President, Long Beach Unified School District MARY C. STANTON Board Member, Long Beach Unified School District JEFF KELLOGG Vice President, Long Beach Community College District

VOTE NO ON MEASURE 0 Measure 0: Costs an additional $1.2 million per election, slashing funding for teachers, schools, parks, libraries, police, and firefighters Creates partisan gridlock and brings Sacramento-style politics into our local elections Causes local officials to spend more time campaigning and less time governing No on Measure 0: don't let L.A. special interests manipulate our local elections! Do we need to spend $1.2 million extra to move City election dates? NO-in these tough times, vital City and school services should not be sacrificed to pay for this wasteful and unnecessary political scheme. In 1986, residents voted for the present system of consolidated elections among the City, School Board, and Community College Board. Measure 0 reverses that reform by moving the election dates for City offices to June and leaving the election dates for School Board and Community College Board in April. That means the City, School Board, and Community College Board would no longer share the costs of running a consolidated election. Instead, each bears the costs of holding separate elections--costing $1.2 million extra per election year, according to the Long Beach City Clerk. Besides wasting money, Measure 0 would lengthen City general election campaigns from two to five months, pressuring candidates to raise more money for longer campaigns. Finally, holding our nonpartisan municipal elections concurrently with state and federal contests will increase the partisanship of our local elections, leading to the same ugly political gridlock we see in Sacramento and Washington D.C. Outside special interests want our city to perform like Sacramento--don't let them succeed. VOTE NO ON MEASURE 0 -- WE CANNOT AFFORD $1,200,000 OF ADDITIONAL CUTS TO SCHOOLS, PARKS, LIBRARIES, POLICE, AND FIREFIGHTERS! BOB FOSTER, Mayor City of Long Beach LAURA L. DOUD, City Auditor City of Long Beach FELTON WILLIAMS President, Long Beach Unified School District MARY STANTON Board Member, Long Beach Unified School District JEFF KELLOGG Vice President, Long Beach Community College District Rebuttal to Arguments Against 347 California cities save money by having their elections on the same days that state and county elections are held. Measure O allows us to consolidate our elections which will save money spent on City elections. The politicians making exaggerated claims that fewer elections will cost $1 million tie their argument to the cost of Board of Education elections. Those are costs we have now. We can save even more money when we consolidate those election dates as well. The status quo is expensive. Those who argue against Measure O don't mention the current costs. The current election schedule has taxpayers paying for April, June, and November elections every two years. Consolidating local elections to June and November will save money over time, that's why the other cities have done it. The opponents of Measure O conveniently leave out any estimate of long-term savings to taxpayers. They leave out any explanation for why Long Beach is one of the only hold-out cities. Common sense and simple arithmetic tells us that fewer elections means fewer costs. We pay for the state June and November elections already. Consolidating local elections with state elections is logical. Measure O consolidates election dates. Two elections is less than three. Two elections will cost less than three. KATHAY FENG Executive Director, California Common Cause ROBERT GARCIA Long Beach Vice Mayor AL AUSTIN Long Beach City Councilmember STEVEN NEAL Long Beach City Councilmember